Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 1 no. dwelling (Use Class C3) with access, layout and scale to be determined.

Applicant: Mr David Parsons

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 129 to 158.

The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.

Andrew Beard, agent, spoke in support of the application. Andrew stated that there was a previous application for two houses on this site, which was withdrawn in order to bring forward the current proposals which were in keeping with the character of the area, in line with policies and constituted a sustainable development. Andrew added that the proposals retained the frontage landscaping and would remove the untidy gap currently in place. Andrew stated that the proposals would not impact on the amenity lines of adjacent properties, and provided 3 car parking spaces which was fully compliant with policy. Andrew stated that there was existing planning permission for a hall to the rear of the property, where the car parking spaces would be located, and added that the house and the hall could coexist. Andrew stated that in his opinion, there were no grounds to refuse the application.

Tim Marsh, on behalf of ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that the application was for a class 3 dwelling, with four bedrooms and a reasonable expectation of four cars, however only three parking spaces were provided. Tim stated that one third of the mass on number 20 Pitts lane was in front of the prevailing building line, and therefore this two storey building would protrude out and be very noticeable especially at the bend in the road. Tim added that the location problem was further compounded via the relationship with number 18, as the centre line for number 18 was set behind the rear wall of number 20 and would dominate the garden, and the owner of number 18 had complained that this would result in a loss of light for his garden. Tim stated that a possible solution would be to align the front of number 20 with the road, and adopt sloping hip-bend rooves, which would both maintain the building line and reduce the dominance of number 18 by number 20. Tim was of the opinion that the proposals were not satisfactory in their current form, and the Borough Design Guide stated that development should respond appropriately to the existing character and identity of the area and relate well to neighbours. Tim concluded by stating that the application did not fit in with its surroundings, and should be refused.

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, provided a statement in objection to the application which was read out by the Vice Chairman in the Chair. Shirley stated that the existing dwellings in Pitts Lane were set back from the road, creating an open environment. Shirley added that although a building line may not exist, there was a convention which should be followed. Shirley was of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26